A dirty HAND cannot usher in clean governance

February 26, 2012 at 2:14 pm 6 comments

A dirty HAND cannot usher in clean governance.
‘Sonia declines to provide tax information’ was a news item that appears in the papers on the 25th Feb. She has cited person freedom and security risk. One is puzzled on what security risk is there if she discloses her tax returns. Does this security risk pertain only to Mrs Sonia and not to the others who disclose their income tax returns? She has also cited personal freedom. Does personal freedom is an exclusive right of Mrs Sonia. So the others who disclose their income tax returns have no personal freedom. It looks that Mrs Sonia Gandhi is afraid and is not comfortable in this area because she has much to fear. It is a known fact that she has amassed assets and wealth disproportionate to her known income.
It seems that only Mrs Sonia Gandhi has the right to privacy. Transparency is a must for all public servants and Mrs Sonia Gandhi is no private person. If all MPs can disclose their incomes and if others who are requisitioned under the RTI can oblige what is the problem with Mrs Sonia Gandhi.How can she claim to her income tax returns are ‘private in nature’ This cannot be allowed to go without being challenged. It seems that Mrs Sonia Gandhi is not all that clean in this area. There have been time and again the alleged accusations that money-looted has flowed into her kitty. If this is to be disclaimed then it is for her to be more transparent in her money affairs. She is a public personality and has to disclaim these allegations through her readiness to be transparent.
One cannot have two yardsticks-one for the other politicians and one for her. What is this exclusive right she is claiming? I do not know how the Chief public information officer will take this forward. It seems that Mrs Sonia Gandhi and her children are enjoying unfettered rights-they are outside the overview of the ordinary law.
Similarly for the CBI to turn down the plea of Dr Swamy on probing Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s role in Bofors is also unacceptable. The claim of the CBI director that unless new evidence was presented the case cannot be reopened does not hold water. But new evidence will surface only if Mrs Sonia Gandhi is probed .Evidence will not fall from the heavens. When it has been stated by both the CBI records and the Swedish authorities that Indian agencies had failed to interrogate Mrs Sonia Gandhi it reveals a fraud played on the people of India, There seem to be a cover-up. Why this sheltering of Mrs Sonia Gandhi against even justice. She has to be exposed and she should readily accept to be probed if she is clean.
In the disclosure of the income tax returns also Mrs Sonia should be treated as others and compelled to disclose. There seems to be something fishy and stinking. Escaping the disclosure directly points at some thing Mrs Sonia has to hide. It makes her a alleged defaulter and more doubts are created. No matter how high you are the law is above you Mrs Sonia Gandhi. And she goes about campaigning that the Congress is against corruption and wants clean governance. The test of the pudding is the eating of it. It is for Mrs Sonia Gandhi to stand this test of transparent and fight against corruption in her own affairs when it comes to income and probe on the Bofors issue. Otherwise these two will stick to her permanently –who is she afraid of? She cannot demand of others what she herself is refusing to undergo. This is exactly what I had written of the forked tongued Congress. And what is she afraid of? A dirty HAND cannot usher in clean governance.
Dr Mrs Hilda Raja,


Entry filed under: Uncategorized.

Theatre of the Absurd The heart that forgives an injury is like an oyster that closes its wound with a pearl

6 Comments Add your own

  • 1. dakul  |  February 27, 2012 at 5:33 am

    Saw this on
    Twitter@Vinod Sharma
    ‘Illness a secret, overseas travels a secret, income a secret, religion a secret, views a secret, role in govt a secret. And she rules India…’

    • 2. hilda raja  |  February 27, 2012 at 10:55 am

      As usual you have hit the nail on the head(you know whose head?)I liked what you stated-it sounds a bit poetic also-illness a secret-overseas travel a secret income a sceret religion a secret views a secret role in government a secret-role in Q’ case a secret….yet she rules India.I liked it so much and hence the repeat-Thank you DakulHR

  • 3. sagar pilare  |  February 27, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Respected Ma’am,
    Sonia Gandhi has not claimed to be above Law. She has used s.8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.S8 deals with Exemption from disclosure of information. s. 8 (1) opens with the words- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen-
    and clause (j) reads- information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the CPIO or the SPIO or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
    Sonila Gandhi, like every other candidate, is required to disclose her assets and liabilities at the time of contesting the elections. There is no secret about it. This information is made public. But some people are bent upon creating stunts by calling third party information about public figures. Sonia Gandhi cannot be expected to oblige such loafers.
    sagar pilare

    • 4. hilda raja  |  February 27, 2012 at 3:05 pm

      thank you for your response.That was educative.HR

    • 5. abhishektondon  |  March 2, 2012 at 5:55 am

      No wonder when the law was drafted, bypass routes such as this were crafted for special persons like Sonia – as every bill goes through her consent! Wonder why you try to justify absurdites!

  • 6. Indian  |  March 5, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    Ref post no. 3 of sagar pillare
    I think following clause 11 has been used to deny the info.
    PIO must have asked the person(Ms Sonia Gandhi) and she has denied it. though PIO could override her denial
    11 (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:
    Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Blog Stats

  • 74,422 hits


%d bloggers like this: